Why?

[Kangy]

If the United States is so commited to wiping out tyranny and protecting freedom, why has nothing been done about Zimbabwe? Robert Mugabe murdered many white land owners in order to give land to corrupted officials, and his policies are leaving many starving or sick. In the recent election, many senior African officials declared the entire election a fraud. His 2/3 victory in this election actually allows Mugabe to solidify his position as a Dictator.

His party intimidates voters, bans public meetings not permitted by the state owned police and wiped the Movement for Democratic Change Party from some ballots completely. In the past, opposition party members have been arrested for that very same purpose.

But why has the US not publically said what they did of the similar regime that Saddam had? Is it, perhaps, because it hasn't got the lure of oil, or a history of hurting Bush? Then again, the UN has done bugger all too. I find it annoying that we're so unwilling to learn from the past. This kind of thing is exactly what turned Iraq into the one the US went against.

 

[Danimal]

Although I am not an expert on the subject, I think the US are concentrating on one thing at a time.

 

[The Monkey]

There are many great dictators in the world, in Africa not the least, but none of them have the potentional to harm the US, so why should they bother?

 

[Kangy]

Yes, but stopping this thing right now could make all the difference in the future. I want to know why no public push has been made to actively denounce Mugabe.

 

[Calanen]

Because, its not important. Mugabe poses no serious threat to America or its interests. He's pathetic. If he ever topples over, the US might send troops in to assist like they did with that other clown who left an African country - Liberia - Charles Taylor I think his name was. The US also has a lot going on in Africa. But there is really nobody comprable to Saddam or the Taliban there. Even Mugabe. And I think the USA is worried about Iran, conquering Iraq completely, North Korea and now China, to want to send troops into Africa attacking his tinpot dictatorship.

Summary of what the US has done in Africa recently.

http://www.prairienet.org/acas/military/miloverview.html

Note the USA was still selling Mugabe weapons until end of 2001.

 

[Dynasty]

Although I am not an expert on the subject, I think the US are concentrating on one thing at a time.

well thats because bush doesnt have the ability to multitask....

 

[CptStern]

well to be fair, the US has imposed sanctions on zimbabwe ...but Mugabe and his cronies arent affected ..it's the poor of zimbabwe that suffer

the US is more on the sidelines on this particular issue ...there's some evidence that Mugabe's opposition attempted to conspire with the CIA to assisinate Mugabe, so it's just a matter of time before the us intervenes

 

[Tr0n]

Big fish first...little fish second.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'd support intervention

But.. I think if it happened there'd be little hope of ever being even small stability there. Post war situations like Europe after WWII, what we wanted in Vietnam, and Iraq work better due to there being previous stability and more structured things to fall back on (for the overall part anyway).

These places have always had electoral violence and tribal rivalry. Others have too but they've been seemingly able to overcome..

Edit:

If the CIA could work with local rebels (who wouldn't be crazy like usually turns out and do something evil alongside the revolution) and help them put in something better that'd be good too, less entanglement. We tried that in Iraq but the Iraqi Army was too strong and defeated the rebels. Plus the CIA has been crippled in this department due to certain legislation.

 

[mortiz]

Don't forget about the Sudan, the Government in place there are just as bad as Saddam ever was, even worse in some cases.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Don't forget about the Sudan, the Government in place there are just as bad as Saddam ever was, even worse in some cases.

The African Union intervened but it's doing diddley squat. Just read an article by a former marine there who's describing how the AU troops just have to sit there and watch somberly as Sudanese choppers strafe villages and such.

 

[CptStern]

I'd support intervention

But.. I think if it happened there'd be little hope of ever being even small stability there. Post war situations like Europe after WWII, what we wanted in Vietnam, and Iraq work better due to there being previous stability and more structured things to fall back on (for the overall part anyway).

These places have always had electoral violence and tribal rivalry. Others have too but they've been seemingly able to overcome..

Edit:

If the CIA could work with local rebels (who wouldn't be crazy like usually turns out and do something evil alongside the revolution) and help them put in something better that'd be good too, less entanglement. We tried that in Iraq but the Iraqi Army was too strong and defeated the rebels. Plus the CIA has been crippled in this department due to certain legislation.

cia intervention is the last thing zimbabwe needs ...they need to dispose of Mugabe but any foreign intervention will lead to civil war

 

[KoreBolteR]

hopefully the US will stay out, they know if they do there would be no more anti-americans popping up around the world...

stay out of it, and let the Zimbabwe people or the UN deal with this.

let this be the example of a country being 'freed' without americas help. see how it turns out.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

let this be the example of a country being 'freed' without americas help. see how it turns out.

Well it's turned out good for Ukraine (kind of without help. We were there to counter Russia so I guess it cancels out?) Georgia, Krygstan, and.. sort of okay for Lebanon. It's just with a violent filled political situation like this it looks like no matter what it's going to be bloody- not to be a pessimist but it seems unavoidable.

Keep things the way it is, you get the opposition murdered by this dictator.

Local uprising taking him out, bloody battle, with violent political instability following.

Like Stern said, foreign help, civil war.

Just a lose lose situation, but it'd probably be better for them to endure the violence of a local uprising and get it done, I doubt Mugabe could stop them if they got united.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Why? Why hasnt the UN gathered and done something about situations like this and Sudan while the US is busy elsewhere?

 

[ComradeBadger]

The UN do shit all - ever.

They've standed ideally by during ethnic cleansing..

 

[Combine Elite]

The UN do shit all - ever.

They've standed ideally by during ethnic cleansing..

The UN in any situation will 'debate' sanctions for over a year before action is taken. Countries usually impose sanctions long before the UN. They have as Comrade suggests stood by and basically ate popcorn while the cleansing was going on. Re : Rawanda. The UN is a large behemoth type red tape riddled agency with no real bite. Like I said somewhere else in 7 hours you might get them to all agree the sky is blue. 'Might' being the key word there.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Yeah, but they actually stopped their troops intervening when people were being massacared.

Appalling behavior.. also, all of the security council members just look out for themselves...

 

[Asknoone]

The UN are useless. Word.

I feel the same way about this Mugabe ordeal, no he does not pose any immediate threat to the united states but does this mean the people of Africa should be made to suffer? No, it does not - I believe something should be done about it.

 

[Combine Elite]

Yeah, but they actually stopped their troops intervening when people were being massacared.

Appalling behavior.. also, all of the security council members just look out for themselves...

True all true. Annan is powerless, the true UN power sits on the security council as it were. If it does not affect them it does not get attention. The general in charge of the UN troops at the time in Rawanda has written a book about it, but go figure I cannot remember his name.